A federal judge on Thursday ordered that prosecutors make public a transcript of a phone call that former national security adviser Michael Flynn tried hard to hide with a lie: his conversation with a Russian ambassador in late 2016.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington ordered the government also to provide a public transcript of a November 2017 voice mail involving Flynn. In that sensitive call, President Trump’s attorney left a message for Flynn’s attorney reminding him of the president’s fondness for Flynn at a time when Flynn was considering cooperating with federal investigators.

The transcripts, which the judge ordered be posted on a court website by May 31, would reveal conversations at the center of two major avenues of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. So far they have been disclosed to the public only in fragments in court filings and the Mueller report.

Sullivan also ordered that still-redacted portions of the Mueller report that relate to Flynn be given to the court and made public.

Sullivan’s orders came very shortly after government prosecutors agreed to release some sealed records in Flynn’s case. The release was in response to a motion filed with the court earlier this year by The Washington Post, which argued that the public deserved to know more about Flynn’s role in key events and cooperation with investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to one felony count of making a false statement to FBI investigators about his contact with the ambassador and awaits sentencing.

[recounts here the phone calls and other info ]

Trump seemed particularly eager to convey his affection for Flynn after Flynn left the White House in the wake of reports about his calls with Kislyak. Former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and the former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland told investigators Trump asked them to reach out to Flynn to check on him and tell him to stay strong, according to Mueller’s report.

he should know. prime example is what happened in the 2016 presidential election.

also quoted at http://time.com/5590624/trump-jared-kushner-immigration-plan/
“We discriminate against genius,” Trump said of current policies, which he contended excessively favor family based immigration. “We discriminate against brilliance. We won’t anymore once we get this passed.” [is this a swipe at his in laws? a sign of regret about his own drumpf family?]

“Trump wants immigrants to learn proper English and pass a basic exam about how government works. To which immigrants said, ‘You first.’” — JAMES CORDEN

“The craziest part of this new plan is that it will prioritize applicants who demonstrate something called ‘patriotic assimilation,’ meaning it would ‘favor immigrants with an active interest in incorporating the nation’s culture and way of life,’ O.K.? Our culture and our way of life. So if you’re going to want to stay here, you’re going to have to have strong opinions on whether Pillsbury cinnamon rolls come with enough frosting. If you say they do, back on the boat.” — STEPHEN COLBERT, quoting from an article in The Washington Post

Grumpy Cat – the most famous cat on the internet, whose downturned mouth and unimpressed expression was the universal digital shorthand for displeasure – has died.

The seven-year-old cat, real name Tardar Sauce or Tard, became one of the internet’s first “petfluencers” after gaining fame online for her perpetually gloomy gaze, launching an empire worth millions. She died in the arms of her owner, Tabatha Bundesen, in Phoenix, Arizona, on Tuesday morning after complications from a urinary tract infection.

News of her passing was shared with her nearly 11m followers on Instagram beneath the caption: “Some days are grumpier than others.”

Keep it simple and aimed at the main stream American soccer mom suburbanite. “We can do better than this”
With that tag line you can just do a scroll of all the stupidities. Great thing is you can target the scroll to your audience and keep the tag line.
Jack

Well I see Trump is targeting his immigration policy to take away the racist union vote again. It was amusing to see both him and Kamala on the same page this week, trying to appeal to the Democratic nativist vote.

President Trump offered a preview last week of his 2020 campaign tactics, and they were ugly.

He intends to use the power of the presidency to harass his political opponents and create an air of scandal around them. By doing so, he hopes to make at least some voters believe that all politicians are equally corrupt rather than recognizing that Trump himself is the most corrupt president in a long, long time.

Specifically, Trump signaled that he might ask the Attorney General William Barr to investigate Joe Biden’s past dealings with Ukraine. In the same vein, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, said he wanted to ask Ukraine’s government for help in the investigation.

“On its face, there is nothing illegal here. Trump is leveraging his power as president to compel a dependent foreign government to smear the opposition party,” Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine. “It’s just something no president has ever thought to do before. The powers legally available to a corrupt president and a party that has turned a blind eye to his violations of governing norms may be more terrifying than anybody has considered.”

Or as my colleague Maureen Dowd put it: “A president who has spent two years battling accusations that he colluded with a foreign power to fix the 2016 election manages to wriggle off the hook. Just three weeks later, his lawyer unveils their 2020 plan: to collude with a foreign power to fix the election.”

The back story

In 2014, Hunter Biden, Joe’s son, began serving on the board of a Ukrainian company controlled by Mykola Zlochevsky, a political figure with a sketchy past. It was a bad decision by the younger Biden, given his father’s position as vice president. Around the same time, Joe Biden began leading the Obama administration’s efforts to work with Eastern European governments, including Ukraine’s, that were worried about Russia’s new assertiveness.

The New York Times and Bloomberg News have been in a public spat recently about this subject, with The Times reporting that Joe Biden “faces conflict of interest questions” and Bloomberg reporting that he has answered those questions. The details are very difficult to follow, as The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple notes. Either way, there is no evidence that Biden did anything to benefit his son or Zlochevsky.

“When journalists seek the fire behind the smoke in the Biden-Ukraine tale, they often call to ask my opinion,” Oliver Bullough, the author of a book that describes some of the figures involved, wrote in The Washington Post. “Many are eager to flesh out what seems a satisfyingly simple conspiracy, but I have to tell them: It isn’t true.”

Still, the story is murky enough that it casts doubt on Biden, which is precisely what Trump and his allies want to do. He used the same strategy in 2016 to make Hillary Clinton appear corrupt (and she sometimes made it easy for him to do so, much as Hunter Biden has done in this case).

This time, Trump’s strategy is even darker and more dangerous. He’s now the president, which means that he’s powerful enough to make others — like federal officials, who work for him; or foreign officials, who don’t want to alienate the United States — play along with his conspiracy theories.

In this case, I was glad to see a swift, clear response. Ukraine’s top prosecutor told Bloomberg yesterday that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

But reality has never been a precondition for Trump’s public claims. So expect him — and Giuliani and Sean Hannity — to keep pushing the Ukraine story. And if Biden’s candidacy starts to fade, expect dark conspiracies about the new frontrunners.

A second federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration illegally terminated an Obama-era program that provided protections to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

The Richmond, Virginia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled Friday that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan was “arbitrary and capricious” and was not adequately explained.

The 2-1 decision reversed a lower court’s ruling and is in line with a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar case. The government appealed the 9th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court last fall, but the court has not thus far said it would review the case.

The lawsuit before the 4th Circuit centered on a claim that the decision to end DACA needed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines how federal agencies can propose and adopt regulations, and that it did not do so. The government argued that the decision to terminate the program was an agency decision and not subject to the rules of the act.

recent polls seem to make this a little more possible (if not probable) from last month in the nation:

Men who are running for the Democratic presidential nomination are being asked if they would pick a woman as their vice presidential running mate. But Mark Thompson has been asking a more compelling question on his very fine SiriusXM show “Make It Plain with Mark Thompson”: Might women who are competing for the 2020 nomination choose to lead an all-female ticket?

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren replied to a similar line of questioning by telling the host, “I’d put a woman on my ticket.”

Neither Harris nor Warren ruled out male prospects. But their enthusiastic responses to the possibility of an all-female ticket in 2020 moves the discussion about vice-presidential selection in a good direction.

In 2016, as the Democratic National Convention approached, there was a flurry of speculation about the prospect that Hillary Clinton might add Warren to her ticket in order to excite activists in the “Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party.” My sense at the time was that a Clinton-Warren ticket had the potential to do more than merely energize progressives. To my view, a ticket made up of a pair of politically savvy and diversely experienced women would have been a perfect counterbalance to a Republican ticket consisting of the lamentable Donald Trump and the equally lamentable Mike Pence. And I always rejected the notion that an all-female ticket would put off some segments of the electorate. Anyone who says they won’t vote for two women on a ticket probably wouldn’t vote for one woman at the top of the ticket.

Clinton went with a more cautious and predictable choice, picking Virginia Senator Tim Kaine for vice president, and the rest was history.

Now, the prospect arises anew. Again it involves Warren. But, as 2020 approaches, the list a viable women contenders is longer than ever. That list includes a number of women who have already announced for the top job, including Warren and Harris. But it also includes 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who was the subject of speculation as a possible running mate for Joe Biden. (And of suggestions that she would be a better presidential nominee than the former vice president.)

There’s time, of course. But it’s not too early to consider the prospect of a “Warren-Harris” ticket, or a “Harris-Warren” ticket, or “Abrams and…”

KC, quite simply because they want to win the presidency in 2020. Among other things they believe – as I do – that of the Dem candidates at this point in time he seems to have the best chance to beat SFB. He polls better than anyone else against the oranguclown and in almost every poll beats all other Dem candidates in head to head matchups. And PA would likely be a slam dunk. All the support he’s getting now may drift away, but that will probably only be if he commits a series of his renowned gaffs. Oh, and he doesn’t seem to have as his mission to fuck up the party like Bernie! does by injecting the S word into a system that isn’t S. What is your obsession with dissing him? As you said, WTF?

KC, you may be right. I am not trying to convince anyone to support Joe. Support who you wish. I answered a question from my perspective.
And Flatus, that is a legitimate reason not to support Joe. I disagree, but I don’t think my opinion on that issue should inform yours.
You notice that aside from Bernie!, the only person in the field who’s a Democrat by convenience once every four years, I don’t criticize any of the candidates.
Jump on Joe if you wish, but put the muskets down and don’t complain when you see your criticisms coming from the oranguclown’s camp.

Pogo, despite my Article 2 privileges, you have not seen me brandishing a musket over Joe. In fact, I would be thrilled if he would transfer the goodwill he has amassed to Jill. I would eagerly support her candidacy for our Nation’s highest office.

I’m not wild about Biden, but if he takes the nomination, I’ll live with it. The candidate I genuinely like is Amy Klobuchar, but I’m not sure she could take on Trump despite being smarter and way more competent. My next up is Booker and then Harris. Of course, I’m in the “Anybody but Bernie” group. I haven’t forgiven him for 2016 and don’t plan to anytime in the next century.

Biden is ahead right now because of 2 reasons, 1 he ain’t Bernie, and 2 he and Bernie are the only ones with nation wide name recognition. Biden is as high as he can get right now, it my be enough to win the nomination. But look for a push on “new fresh ideas” “we need new generation to step forward” and then the backhanded ” I don’t believe Biden’s age should be held against him” And of course there will be the many times Biden sucks on his big toe. It is who he is. After all there is a reason he is almost 80 and has never made it to first base.
Jack

Post navigation

Contraptions

Our Mission

Founded in 2005, Trail Mix is a an ad-free news commenting forum hosted by Craig Crawford and supported by user donations for the sole purpose of encouraging civil discourse for all points of view. Opinions expressed in posts and comments are the author's own.